In
<CAE1XxDGm_LJqWCaF+b3UKjESDqQ57qYo9BTNJ+eXBCpBmDr=l...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 10/06/2012
at 04:49 PM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said:
>BIF has come to be the generic term, but the same notion has been
>given different names in different statement-level procedural
>languages. COBOL, for example, calls them intrinsic functions.
>The idea is an important one. None of us wants to use an SLPL in
>which such constructs as
>y = sqrt(x) ;
>or the like are not immediately available. The weasel C term
>'library function' is for this reason unfortunate. It leaves open
>the question who must implement them. (BIF instead makes it clear
>than they must come with a compiler or interpeter.)
Not even close. A BIF is a function that the compiler recognizes;
adding a routine to a link or run time library does not make it a BIF.
Frequently, but not always[1], the compiler will generate inline code
for a BIF.
[1] E.g., not for evry BIF or not for every use of a specific BIF.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
